Near Sydney’s Circular Quay sits the Hitler Bar. The door sign has Hitler’s name in Germanic script on a swastika background. Similar nazi era iconography decorates the menus.

This is not just a pop-culture motif for your T-shirt.

Alright, not surprisingly, there is no Hitler Bar. Instead what overlooks Sydney Harbour is the Lenin Bar, replete with the nostalgic/ironic hip communist hammer, sickle and Soviet star kitsch.

This is strange because in overall scope, communism presents as a greater man-made humanitarian catastrophe than nazism, or almost certainly any other ism.

The politically motivated body count of the Soviet Union alone at least rivals, and depending on what you count, easily surpasses the Third Reich.

Beginning with Lenin’s Red Terror and moving on to Stalin’s purges millions were killed, tortured and sent to hellish Gulags.

Stalin’s relocations, collectivisations and apparently engineered famines, generally aimed at ethnic groups and cultural minorities, almost certainly surpass the toll of those killed in Holocaust.

However this is not to diminish the uniquely surrealistic horror of the Holocaust, where the technical and bureaucratic means of modern industrialised states were fashioned into a mechanism for systematic slaughter.

There is, of course, also the small matter of World War II, which for Australians Hitler started by invading Poland.

Except that the invasion of Poland was a joint exercise by Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Germans then attacked Western Europe, while the Russians consolidated their empire over subject peoples in the east.

The co-occupiers of greater Eurasia remained friendly until Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded.

When the Soviets eventually advanced to Berlin their hit squads mopped up any suspected political opposition among the “liberated peoples”, just as the Gestapo and SS had a few years earlier.

Life under either the nazi or the communist state-centralized systems of terror and control seemed remarkably similar, except the uniforms were a different colour.

Communism has proved more durable and perhaps this aids its acceptability.

Grudgingly most of the surviving socialist democratic republics have retreated from the hard core ideology to help them survive, with North Korea being the outlying pariah.

Astonishingly though some who advocated the more extreme versions of communism still attract hero worship.

For example, there is popular T-shirt emblem Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

Che was a disciple of China’s Chairman Mao.

On sheer body count Mao is quite probably the greatest political murderer the world has ever seen, although someone like Pol Pot might trump him on a per capita basis.

Steven Soderbergh’s new two-part biographical film, Che, deals with the beret wearer’s revolutionary life in Cuba and Boliva.

Predictably it doesn’t show Che as Castro’s hatchetman, enthusiastically arranging firing squads or how his attempts to collectivise Cuban agriculture on Maoist lines was inevitably ruinous.

No Hollywood heavyweight would seriously portray a dedicated nazi as an unabashedly romantic hero, let alone in Che’s characteristic Jesus martyr-style poses in the film’s publicity materials.

Nazi ideology, based on a ridiculous pseudo-science of racial superiority, is now viewed as irredeemably wicked.

By contrast, no matter how bad communism has been in practice, many think its ideas and ideals are noble and thus should not be abandoned.

No doubt this belief derives a motivating power of holy indignation from the world’s many undoubted grave injustices.

The perceived good intentions of communism attract a multitude of apologists, who invariably say communism would work if only it was tried properly or had the historically proper conditions etc, etc.

Certainly the idea of universal equality under the dictatorship of the formerly oppressed (as opposed to the racially advantaged) sounds admirable.

Unless you realise the oppressed may not actually be inherently more virtuous, just because they are oppressed.

Also universal equality may mean, as it often seems to, a levelling down to the lowest common denominator, rather than an elevation of the human spirit.

Ultimately the trouble with an all-encompassing utopian ideology, like communism, is that it simply does not take into account that humans can’t be conveniently fitted to a blueprint of social perfectibility.

Or as Immanuel Kant put it:“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”

For believers it’s always the people at fault, never the plan.

For the really true believers they would rather see the people thrown away than the plan.

Lenin’s communist legacy may not be more evil, per se, than nazism but it is certainly more dangerous exactly because it holds out the chimera of a perfectible world based on supposedly noble ideals.

Thankfully except for a few pockets of malign misfits nazism has largely been consigned to Trotsky’s “dustbin of history”.

Hopefully communism will one day be equally discredited but at least it is being swept into the same receptacle.

However it might be better if communism is finally buried, at least as deeply as its millions of victims are.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      05:44am | 26/10/09

      Davids article is a mish mash of fact and fantasy, flavoured with a few half truths.
      Communism v Capitalism, it matters not, the important issues is how the creed is implemented. Sadly to date both systems have screwed the people.
      There are as many forms of Communism as there are Capitalism, how the leader of the day plays them out is the real problem. I would suggest for those thet read, that Christ was the first communist; all men are created equal, suffer little children to come unto me, dividing the bread and fishes amongst the masses etc.

      Surprisingly both camps have been intertwined with religion, many leaders in both camps have been trained in the “church”.

      The real problem is not the ideology, rather it’s the leader and the fools who support them.

      What do we have now? A form of Capitalism, supported by the church and funded by the States (peoples), money. What an unholy mix!

    • Patrick says:

      05:59am | 26/10/09

      The real difference is, as noted, the Nazis started World War 2, but not only that, their conduct in the war was much much worse than that of the Russians. The conduct of the Russians was appalling yes, but the Nazis literally fought a war within a war against the people it had conquered behind its front lines.

      I’m reading at the moment, “The second world war, a complete history” by Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer. The things the SS did in Poland just days into the war (and which continued everywhere the Nazis took control for the duration of the war) are enough to make you understand why Nazism is generally more reviled than Communism. I suggest you seek it out and have a read.

      Also, the much darker thing which makes Nazism more reviled than communism, is the racial aspect. The Nazis had an agenda of ethnic cleansing, planned to depopulate entire countries, forcefully euthanized “undesirables” in the quest to create a race of “supermen”. Notwithstanding the equally as horrific “Final solution”, their agenda was an evil one. Communism in my opinion was/is generally a misguided one.

      Stalin and Hitler where both monsters yes, but in the end, the Nazis where largely defeated on the Eastern front by the Soviets, for which we should be in some way thankful. Stalin was the lesser of two evils.

    • John Passant says:

      06:16am | 26/10/09

      David is wrong to assert that Lenin led to Stalin.  Stalin represented the defeat of the revolution and the establishment of a new capitalist ruling class. The Red Terror was a response to the White Terror launched by the would be fascists, and a reflection of the foreign intervention, teh Civil War, the de-classing of the working class, the destruction of that class… As Lenin said, without a revolution in Germany we are doomed.  It was a close run thing but the German revolution was defeated, and the Russian revolution defeated. Stalin was the final gravedigger of the revolution, introducing state capitalism in Russia and dragging the backward country up by the boots through massive and brutal industrialisation.

    • dianne says:

      07:05am | 26/10/09

      I never understood why people would wear shirts with Che Guevara’s depiction. I guess one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Maybe that is why I am against all forms of extremism and no one has my picture on their shirts. I am too middle of the road. Quite happy about that. I just go about living my life and do and be the best I can be.

    • Leonid says:

      07:08am | 26/10/09

      Josef Stalin was the second biggest mass murderer ever.  His comrade Mao was the biggest, with Hitler completing the shameful trio.

      Apart from a few quaint public comrades whose revisionist tendencies are as strong as ever, there don’t seem to be many communists left in Australia.

      This may be because most people realise that our liberal democracy is preferable to any shade of dictatorship, or it may be that most of the old commos have joined the Greens and are still working away at destroying our way of life behind a thin green veneer.  Watermelon men (and women)?

    • craig s says:

      07:15am | 26/10/09

      Lots of Soviet Troops crossed the border with the Wehrmacht in 1939 did they? Oh dear, reactionary historical revisionism is alive and well and living at News Ltd.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:26am | 26/10/09

      Meh, screwed by communism or screwed by capitalism, it’s all the same.

    • David says:

      07:39am | 26/10/09

      Further proof of just how disgraceful left-wingers are. Even Patrick @ 6.59am merely says that communism was ‘misguided’. Tell that to the millions who died under horrific communist dictatorships, Patrick, that their rulers were only ‘misguided’. Just scratch the surface of the Green’s ideology and you’ll find policies that would make despots such as Stalin, Mao and Castro beem with pride. To think that there still are factions in the ALP which are socialist just makes you wonder about Labor’s place in the 21st century…

    • Kick Knave says:

      07:40am | 26/10/09

      We should also ban McDonalds because of deaths caused by the US’s actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, etc.

    • Steve Smith says:

      07:45am | 26/10/09

      Anything that’s frowned apon or illegal has a good chance to make it’s way into the definition of “cool”. But something that suprises me is that five posts and nobody has yet to point out the obvious?

      How far has capitalism got us? The main advantage of our political stance is, we oppress people of other nations, not our own. Stats on innocent lives lost in the last 8 year battle against “terror” are either had to find or not reported.

      While I’m hardly an advocate for communism, Id rather read an article on both sides of the coin than just say how great our capitalist society really is. Especially given the events of the last twelve months.

    • iansand says:

      07:45am | 26/10/09

      Communism is inherently idealistic.  It is an inconvenient fact that no regime has ever managed to embody those ideals, but the idea of universal equality is attractive.  Communism is thus a magnet for naive idealists.  National Socialism will never be that.

    • Joe says:

      08:09am | 26/10/09

      We need to be reminded what a total faillure the communist experiment was in Russia and how even killing a large percentage of the population didn’t make it work. We need to be reminded especialy when left wing and greens groups still want to go that way. Just have a look at the Green’s latest candidate, Clive Hamilton, talking about suspending ‘democratic processes’ as a soluton as the public start to wake up to the left’s fear campaigns on global warming.

    • John Humphreys says:

      08:20am | 26/10/09

      Wow… of 12 comments about half support Communism. Sad. I wish they would be honest and just type:

      “As long as you have good intentions, it’s OK to kill millions of people. I hope I can kill millions too some day”.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      08:21am | 26/10/09

      “...How far has capitalism got us?...”

      Umm, see that thing you’re typing on…not invented by a Communist.

      “...Id rather read an article on both sides of the coin than just say how great our capitalist society really is.  Especially given the events of the last twelve months…”

      Good grief.

      You should try and understand the meaning of capitalism and the society it allows to foster before making such ill-informed statements.

    • Peter says:

      08:30am | 26/10/09

      Nazism and Communism in World War 2 were gangster regimes.  There was very little different in their methodology.  Nazis were obsessed by race and the Communists by class.  They were equally given to mass slaughter.  The Eastern Front was a war of anhilation, only possible with regimes guided by twisted ideologies.  The post war Communist regimes were grim totalitarian kleptocracies, less killing but dedicated to ruining the lives of millions of its citizens . 
      When formula and “science” is used to dictate how society is to operate and how humans must behave the outcome is the grotesque Fascist, Nazis, Communist and Baath regime that have blighted the 20th century.  Humans become silly putty and what doesn’t fit the mould is removed (ie exterminated).  For all its flaws the capitalist system doesn’t even come close to this anhilatory approach to governance.  No moral equivalence.  To say there is betrays a fundamental lack historical knowledge or, worse, an inexcusable wilful blindness to unspeakable crimes against humanity.
      And yes, Che, like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Franco and the second tier dictators,  was a 24 carat ideologue and mass murderer.  He was also an abject failure as a revolutionary.  The Sonderbergh film was a white wash..

    • Patrick says:

      08:33am | 26/10/09

      David, I don’t mean to apologize for mass murderers such as Stalin and Mao, the things they did are inexcusable under any circumstances. But I would not call communist ideals as a whole, “evil”. There are many many things that Stalin, Mao and every other tin pot communist dictator did that where ireconcilable with actual communist ideals. The actions by the leadership of the Third Reich however where entirely in accordance with Nazi ideology. Of the two ideologies, irespective of the things that where done in their name, Nazism takes the cake as the worst.

      The way I view it, the regimes of Stalin and Mao where essentially National Socialist themselves. If The two of them sat down and had a candid chat with Hitler, they probably would have found they had quite alot of things in common.

      In any event, I think you are confusing socialism and anything left wing with communism. It would be akin to me likening conservatism and anything right wing as “facist”

    • shabangabang says:

      08:41am | 26/10/09

      Never fear. The far rights alternative to Communism, Nick Griffin, is well on the way to spreading facism across the UK. Shouldn’t take long til the right-wing extremists here in Oz start following his preachings.

    • Lobster says:

      08:54am | 26/10/09

      Margaret: The meaning of capitalism to me is 500 million living affluently and the rest of the world not.  Technological prowess helps us maintain this imbalance.  With half of the world living on less than $2 a day, capitalism can’t go on forever in the face of dwindling resources.

    • Peter says:

      08:54am | 26/10/09

      Here’s the thing.  Plenty of people here are saying its not Communism its the people who failed to implement its ideology/principles//philosophy who are at fault for the horrible things done it its name.  That may work once as an explanation, but when its practitioners get it “wrong” , a euphamism for killing, subjegating and old fashioned oppression, again and again one is entitled to look to the core of the ideology.  And it is rotten.  The deals, if that is the right word, were artificial and given to demagogy. 
      As for the distinction that Patrick seeks to draw between Nazis killing in accordance with its ideology and the Communist practitioners kiling incidental to them well, that is just plain silly.  Then to say that actually Stalin and Mao were in fact National Socialists is too cute by half.  Stalin and Mao regarded the anhilation of what they regarded as incorrigible class enemies. kulaks and merchants as a necessary means of quickly restructuring society in accordance with communist ideals.

    • Andrew says:

      08:57am | 26/10/09

      Well done David. These sort of articles prompt a lot of debate. How do you compare two types of evil? You don’t. The point is Communism was disgusting, caused suffering to millions and still haunts many people to this day.

      Craig Said “Lots of Soviet Troops crossed the border with the Wehrmacht in 1939 did they?” No Craig, they invaded Poland at the same time from the other end, meeting in the middle at a pre-arranged point. Have you ever head of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact???!!! And Patrick, you should remember this pact also when you claim that the Nazis started WWII. Germany could never have invaded Western Europe without Soviet Consent. Patrick why should we be thankful that the Germans were beaten on the Eastern Front? Ask the people of Eastern Europe if they are thankful.

      John Passant I accept your point that Stalin was different from Lenin, but Lenin was an evil man himself. He encouraged a violent form of Marxism and is the chief reason the Russian Revolution was so horrible. He proves that Communism is evil, no matter who the leader is. John A Neve your point is daft. Name me one good communist leader?

      Shane, “It’s all the same” is it? When was the last time you were deported in a cattle car? That statement shows you have no experience of a communist regime.

      Steve Smith, do you really believe that capitalist systems are the only ones that “oppress people of other nations, not our own”? Please ask an Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Pole, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Serb, Croat etc etc if they agree with you. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it is an unquantifiable amount better than communism.

      I recommended that everyone seek out a docco called Soviet Story by Edv?ns Šnore or read A Peoples Tragedy by Orlando Figes. I hate our politicians, and bankers are scum. But I’d take them any day over a communist system. I’m not sure if Nazism or Communism is worse, I just know that they are both abominable systems that have caused death, destruction and misery to millions. Davids point is 100% correct, we should not celebrate communism in any way, shape or form.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:58am | 26/10/09

      Margaret Gray,
      I am always willing to listen, so please explain Capitalism to me.
      Trying as best I can, I would suggest the rise of socialism and communism is a direct result of the failure of capitalism. Which, after all, is only a modern form of feudalism. Most of us are forgiving and placid,but as the saying goes “even the worm will turn”. Revolution in all it’s forms only takes place when the people have been abused for too long.
      But Margaret, please explain capitalism.?

    • Steve Smith says:

      08:59am | 26/10/09

      @Margaret Gray: your really good at taking sentences of context, please continue.. but, for the slow people what I was trying to point out is that both communism and capitalism have their downfalls. Australia has been shielded from the GFC , but look up “tent cities” in Google, then let me know how great it is to be a capitalist society.

      Both ideals are so flawed, but as communisms flaws are so apparent.. it’s better sharing a different view point than everyone patting eachother on the back as to how great our society is.

      @John Humphreys: “As long as you have good intentions, it’s OK to kill millions of people. I hope I can kill millions too some day”... is that in reference to Iraq or Afganistan?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:35am | 26/10/09

      Steve and John,

      It’s a pity that your ideology prevents you from seeing beyond the extremes inherent in all political dogma.

      Every ‘ism has its worst elements…upon which you both seem fixated.

      The fact you can drink clean water, pursue your chosen vocation and walk peacefully in a pluralistic society says more about the virtues of capitalism than you are prepared to admit.

      Why is that?

      The individual freedom and lifestyle you enjoy today has been bought and paid for - sometimes in blood - by those who seized the opportunities that a capitalist society provided.

      It also affords us the capacity to help others less fortunate.

      All the heavy-lifting has been done for you.

      Why are you so ungrateful?

    • Andrew says:

      09:37am | 26/10/09

      Well done David. These sort of articles prompt a lot of debate. How do you compare two types of evil? You don’t. The point is Communism was disgusting, caused suffering to millions and still haunts many people to this day.

      Craig Said “Lots of Soviet Troops crossed the border with the Wehrmacht in 1939 did they?” No Craig, they invaded Poland at the same time from the other end, meeting in the middle at a pre-arranged point. Have you ever head of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact???!!! And Patrick, you should remember this pact also when you claim that the Nazis started WWII. Germany could never have invaded Western Europe without Soviet Consent. Patrick why should we be thankful that the Germans were beaten on the Eastern Front? Ask the people of Eastern Europe if they are thankful.

      John Passant I accept your point that Stalin was different from Lenin, but Lenin was an evil man himself. He encouraged a violent form of Marxism and is the chief reason the Russian Revolution was so horrible. He proves that Communism is evil, no matter who the leader is. John A Neve your point is daft. Name me one good communist leader?

      Shane, “It’s all the same” is it? When was the last time you were deported in a cattle car? That statement shows you have no experience of a communist regime.

      Steve Smith, do you really believe that capitalist systems are the only ones that “oppress people of other nations, not our own”? Please ask an Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Pole, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Serb, Croat etc etc if they agree with you. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it is an unquantifiable amount better than communism.

      I recommended that everyone seek out a docco called Soviet Story by Edv?ns Šnore or read A Peoples Tragedy by Orlando Figes. I hate our politicians, and bankers are scum. But I’d take them any day over a communist system. I’m not sure if Nazism or Communism is worse, I just know that they are both abominable systems that have caused death, destruction and misery to millions. Davids point is 100% correct, we should not celebrate communism in any way, shape or form.

    • AdamC says:

      09:38am | 26/10/09

      The appeal of communists like Che and Mao is simple. They are glamourous murderers, and some people have a thing for glamourous murderers. Think of those people who send love letters to serial killers.

      The appeal of communism itself, however, is more difficult to fathom, though I see it retains support among some commenters here. One particular argument among the above that I take issue with is the one that sees communism and capitalism as two economic systems which are essentially politically neutral and the communist slaughterhouses that we have seen (again, and again) arose merely because of the authoritarian implementation of communism, not the communism itself.

      Rubbish, communism is naturally authoritarian and antithetical to liberal democracy (which is what Australia actually is—Australia is capitalist like France is communist). How do you democratically expropriate people’s property? How do you liberally direct the economy without regard to what people actually want? How do tell people where they have to live while fastidiously protecting their human rights? Answer: you cannot.

      Advocates of communism should accept their doctrine for what it is.

    • Nick says:

      09:51am | 26/10/09

      As Bertrand Russell said of Christianity, the same might be said of communism” “You can’t say it has failed as no-one has ever tried it”. What has been practised in its name is about as far away from the ideals as the Branch Davidians or Scientologists are from Christianity! Should we point to the Inquisition or the quaint practice of burning alive midwives, herbal healers or crazy old ladies who kept cats as practices evoking the ideals of Christianity..or slavery justified by the argument that slaves did not have a soul. etc etc. Man’s record of ethical compassionate behaviour is appalling under any guise!

    • Lenny J says:

      09:55am | 26/10/09

      Quite frankly it is hard to actually compare the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Mao with any degree of relative certainty. All were savage brutal and pyschopathic dictators who exercised life and death over their subjects, just as ancient Kings used to do. They each followed their own bastardised creed.

      They tolerated no opposition to their ideas and as they grew in power each of them grew in savagery and brutality until in the end they did exactly and only what they wanted.

      Some numbers? Hitler killed 6 million jews, WW2 killed 20-30 million all up. Stalin killed 66 million via the Gulags and simple extermination of ethnic minorites in all of the Soviet states he brutally controlled, if you take Solzhenitsyn’s estimates from his writings. Mao was responsible for a famine created out of his own insanity that killed 30 million Chinese. Hard to verify these numbers exactly but they are simply unbelievably horrifc even if wildly wrong.

      Stalin was not a communist, he was a dictator obsessed with personal power. There never has been a true communist state. A modern social democracy is probably the closest we have gotten. Mao was a madman completely obsessed with his own power and god like qualities. China is not a communist state and neither is North Korea.  The communist doctrine was just a convenient tool for a dictator.

      Just all of us make sure that we never ever let a government or a leader of any persuasion or any religion ever have that much power again. USA and Australia went close in recent years but the people had enough sense to call a halt. Modern democracies are a long way from perfect but they are heading tin the right direction. Freedom of the individual to aspire to whatever they want for their own life and to follow their own star.

    • Andrew says:

      09:57am | 26/10/09

      @ John A Neve
      “I would suggest the rise of socialism and communism is a direct result of the failure of capitalism”.
      Yes you are completely and totally right… If you live in 1867 that is. The rise of Marxism and communism was a prompted by horrible factory conditions of the early industrial revolution. This has no relevance today. I’m no defender of capitalism, but I am a defender of democracy. Democracy only functions in a capitalist society. Maybe in a “socialist” society as in Scandinavia, but I hope you get my point.  But communism is a dictatorship. If you want to have a debate about the merits of capitalism this is not the place. In some other forum I’ll probably disagree with a lot of what you say, but concede there are many imperfections with the capitalist system. However, the point of this article is that COMMUNISM IS EVIL. It is, and there can be no denying it. If I am wrong, please move to North Korea and send me a post card.

    • Patrick says:

      10:06am | 26/10/09

      Andrew, I’m well aware of the Molotov Ribentrop pact. The pact was secret at the time struck less than a week before the outbreak of the war, so If we want to talk about timing, then it was indeed the Nazis who started the war. The Russians waited roughly about 2 weeks before they announced their intention to occupy Eastern Poland. Hitler had intended to invade Poland and had laid out his plans for that end well before the deal was struck. He most likely wouldn’t have been free to take on the West without Svoiet consent, but the Nazis did indeed “start” the war.

      It is a logical fallacy to suggest that the actions of the individuals are reflective of the underlying ideology of a cause. It is not unlike calling into question the entirety of christianity for the actions of a few paedophilic priests. If you want to judge an ideology based on its core merits, then do so, thats fine, it may well be rotten, but do not judge the ideology on the actions of those who do things in its name, but may be at odds with what the ideology actually represents.

      My point is, even though much at odds with both ideologies, if I had the undesirabel choice of choosing to be a Nazi or a Communist, I would choose to be a Communist every time.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:16am | 26/10/09

      Andrew,
      From my first post you will see I am not supportive of either system.
      But I don’t see Communism as evil, rather the leader of the day.

      More to the point and I would agree it’s not for this debate. I see a natural progression of Socialism, Communism followed by Communialism. I don’t believe there can be any denying, even in this country, our loss of freedom,
      the increase in restrictive rules and regulations, the constant telling of what is good or bad for us, the confines of political correctness and the list goes on. Personal freedom is dying and we don’t seem to care.

    • Ben says:

      10:29am | 26/10/09

      Great piece. Loved it.  Communism: 100 million dead bodies and counting.

    • dude says:

      10:35am | 26/10/09

      The tried and failed communism experiments around the world weren’t strictly communism. Together with the nazis they were essentially totalitarianism and doomed to failure and rightly so.  The greatest mistake so-call communists made was the banning of religion. Humanity wasn’t ready for that sort of leap forward in intelligence, not just yet at any rate. This might account for China’s regime hanging in there, not having a super natural Theist religion to speak of from the start of their revolution. Unlike the nazis, who were Christian fundamentalists who just took on more than they could handle. A fact that western Christian democracies are very quiet about and why the lion’s share of the nazi finances for their industrial and arms build up before and after the start of WW2 came from the US. Just check out history of the Bush family if you’re not sure. Luckily the yanks saw the errors in their ways and belatedly joined the fright on our side.
      Once humanity advances enough to consign notions like religion and nationalism to the scrap heap of history once and for all, another chapter in our advancing evolution will be completed. Even Einstein could see that for the human species to survive on this planet long term it needs to totally socialise it, to combat the true evils of life destroying inequities and throw off the shackles of nationalism and religion. If you can, open your eyes to look at our evolutions time line, you will see that this is what is happening. It’s a bit too slow for my likening, but happening all the same. With the possible onset of climate change and the surety of peak oil I think it’s about to get a bit of a hurry-up. Apart from the possibly avoidable pain and suffering this will no doubt cause a lot innocent people, it seems the only way humanity ever changes for the better. Why must we allways learn the hard way when sometimes it’s not necessary to do so?

    • Andrew says:

      10:42am | 26/10/09

      @ Patrick. Communism preaches class war. Death is at the very heart of this particular ideology. If you were defending Islam, your point would be valid. You can be a Muslim and preach love and pursue a peaceful world, even if there are Muslims in the world who pervert their beliefs to spread death and destruction. However Communism prescribes the destruction of whole classes of people. That means if you believe in communism you believe certain people should be exterminated. Personally I believe all people have a right to exist and live in peace and harmony. “If I had the undesirable choice of choosing to be a Nazi or a Communist, I would choose”... I would choose neither. Many in Eastern Europe made the exact opposite choice you said you would make. Why? Because IFyou strip Nazism of its antisemitic and homophobic elements, it’s better than communism. But mainly because they fought for their countries, which were occupied for half decade by communist oppressors. I know that is a big IF, because who could overlook those elements. They caused the holocaust. But we are lucky enough that we don’t have to make that choice. We are free to say that communism was pure evil. I’m not judging Communism on Stalin alone. I’m judging it on all the ideology, which is horrible. Anyone who says that communism had noble goals or something similar is misguided. It preached class warfare. I don’t want any warfare of any kind. The Communists and the Nazis started WWII together. The only reason this isn’t an accepted historical fact is that Hitler double crossed Stalin, which that fool didn’t even see coming, and he ended up on the allied side. Hitler was indeed an aggressor, but this doesn’t change the fact that the USSR (and Japan) were also. The winter war against Finland is yet another example.

    • Patrick says:

      10:44am | 26/10/09

      Uhg, “dude”, why don’t you just draw a gigantic bullseye on your forehead instead?

    • Another Andrew says:

      10:45am | 26/10/09

      How ironic that capitalist enterprises make communism cool in order to make a dollar. A pub uses Communist symbolism to make money. And the clothing industry (exploitative global capitalists) make money out of Che Guevara t-shirts. It’s all image, particularly the revolutionary theme, that appeals to trendy urbanites trying to find ways to express how they’re not part of “the system”.

    • H says:

      10:51am | 26/10/09

      I would hazard to guess the ambiguity around communism has something to do with the fact it has existed in multiple countires and evolved differently in them.

      There is also a hilarity in seeing anyone wearing a Che T-shirt - its a classic joke going over the head. The person wearing the shirt is only occassionaly aware of the fact that there is a delicious irony in sporting Che as a marketing symbol.

    • Andrew says:

      11:10am | 26/10/09

      @ John A Neve
      I agree with much of what you say about the increase in restrictive rules and regulations etc. But I will make my point here: Kevin Rudd is knob! I hate him. The Labor party sucks. My god isn’t Wayne Swan a loser. They have spent all our money. And on crappy projects that wont actually help any of us, Or even the economy. Julia Gillard is sooooooo ugly. Question time is a load of crap. Victoria should secede from the commonwealth. Shane Warne should be emperor!

      See what I did there, I criticised the government, and I even diverted into nonsense. But I can. because I live in a democracy. Yes, maybe FOI rules and whatever else you care to mention are less than what we would like them to be, but you know what, we are discussing this subject right now People have been executed for talking about stuff like i just said. The point of the article here is Communism is evil. If I’d said I hate Gorbachev in Eastern Europe on the 1980’s I’d be in jail. Please don’t compare the minor irritations you put up with now to the restrictions that people in occupied Eastern Europe lived through. That is just insulting!

    • Patrick says:

      11:10am | 26/10/09

      Nice one “Another Andrew”

      Andrew No1. You cannot strip Nazism of its antisemitic or homophobic elements because thats what Nazism is, an ideology obsessed with race and “Aryan” supremacy and extreme nationalism. If you took all those things away it wouldn’t be Nazism, Hitler wouldn’t have been who he was,  there would not have been a World War 2 (in the form that we know it) and there would have been no problem. In fact, take all the bad stuff away and all you really have is conservatism. As such, that wasn’t the case.

      People in the Soviet Union who where conquered by the Nazis initially welcomed them as liberators because tas they say, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, not because they shared any Nazi ideals. It soon became very clear however that the Nazis where not their friends at all and planned, and set in motion measures to depopulate and exterminate the entire slavic peoples of Eastern Europe to make way for German colonisation and “Lebensraum” (spelling?) Hitler stated that they should be “treated as Redskins”. I will take Class war over Racial extermination any day (preferably i would choose “neither” of course)

      If we want to talk about Death tolls as a measure of which was worse, Communism and Nazism, I would say that the only reason The Nazis didn’t kill more people than they did was because, well, they where defeated before they had the chance to do so.

    • hoofman says:

      11:18am | 26/10/09

      Good grief, what a tired argument. The principle point of this argument was well accepted in the west by 1950 and in the former communist countries sometime later. Communism is an anachronism and almost completely irrelevant except to those living in the few remaining countries that are allegedly communist. There is no risk of communism spreading to further countries nowadays.  I can’t see that it’s even worth debating, except for stirring commentary in the almost equally tiresome left v right debates that clog a lot of blog commentary these days.

    • mikk says:

      11:27am | 26/10/09

      Where in the communist manifesto does it say you have to kill your opponents, subjugate your population and act as authoritarian as possible?  IT DOESNT!
      So where do you right wingers get off saying Castro, Mao, Stalin et al are communists. They were not. They were authoritarian dictatorships.

      Their regimes had much more in common with modern capitalism than any form of socialism. The wealthy elite in the west would love to have the power of the communist party members and the way we are going it wont be long till they have it. 

      It is funny in the authors condemnation of mass murder and oppression that he has forgotten the wests form in killing the indigenous peoples of more than half the continents of the world. Nothing to say about the genocidal murders of Australian Aborigines, American Indians, the subcontinent, middle east, China, The Maoris, not to mention the decimation of South America. 

      The problem is the insane belief people have that they need “leaders” to run the world for them because “the people” are too stupid to do it for themselves. There is no “democracy” in this world. Peoples only engagement in the political sphere is to vote occasionally and maybe the odd (pointless) protest walk.  The rest of the time it is in the hands of the few elites who scratch each others backs and live high on the rest of us.

      Give anyone power and they will use it to their own advantage and exploit whoever they can. It is as inevitable as the sunrise. The evidence from history is clear yet still we allow ourselves to be dominated and subjugated.

    • Jimmy Moore says:

      11:41am | 26/10/09

      First off, the alternative to communism is capitalism. Communism is the linking of democracy and economics so that every person can contribute to decisions about what society produces. Or if scaremongering is the flavour of the day as it seems to be from the tone of what has been said above: This is the one thing that could prevent the extinction of the human race.

      Communism is not inherently violent, revolutionary or anything else. It does not preach class war. This article is equivalent to saying that Christianity induces paedophilia and ‘preaches’ that evolution is a lie. The idea of class struggle was introduced by Stalin in order to justify the oppression of political opponents. There is no necessary element of violence in Communist ideology - having an economically democratic society requires as much bloodshed as having a democracy if you start with a monarchy, plutocracy etc.

      If you think that because a poor, war torn country’s embrace of Communism necessarily implied that an embrace of Communism will lead to a poor, war torn country, your thinking is simplistic verging on cretinous.

      Second, how many deaths do you think capitalism has caused?

      The unspoken message of this article is that capitalism, which puts the eventual starvation and asphyxiation of the entire human race within the control and decision-making domain of organisations whose sole charter is profit, should be maintained, and that ordinary people should not have a say in the consumption of natural resources and the fouling of the atmosphere etc. Or simply put, you can vote as long as you’re not standing in the way of profit.

      Doubtless the author thinks himself a free thinker who’s spotted a contradiction between the ‘cultural legacy’ of communism and the ‘harsh reality’. In fact the contradiction is between his specifically informed view of a political ideology and the actual content of it, as the irrelevant talk about ‘the virtue (or not) of the oppressed’- not the point. Or as my generation would put it:
      ORLY? Comprehension FAIL! > ROFLMFAO

    • Chase Stevens says:

      11:42am | 26/10/09

      Better a left communist than a right fascist.

    • Andrew says:

      11:45am | 26/10/09

      @ Patrick. Agree with you totally. But.. (Hey there’s always a but, isn’t there!)
      This atricle isn’t a debate about the merits of Nazism Vs Communism. The point is both are despicable. Communism is evil.

      But if we have to compare… You said “I will take Class war over Racial extermination any day”. Stalin deliberately caused famine in the Ukrainke (the grain was sent to Nazi Germany). Communism and Nazism both caused racial extermination. Please, please please realise this. Communism was evil. We can debate which was more evil, but that’s impossible to answer. Both Communism and Nazism were disgusting, and both should be equally reviled. I have seen jumpers with CCCP on the front for sale in Australia. Can you imagine if someone tries to sell jumpers with a swastika?????

    • sdae says:

      11:47am | 26/10/09

      Should be noted that there are various schools of communism. A Stalinist would be a fair subject to a lot of this critiscism, some other followers of communism not so much.

      Should also be noted that universal healthcare, public schooling, labor unions (etc.) were Marxist compromises. The capitalism that you might celebrate wouldn’t be capitalism as you know it without Karl Marx and the workers movements of the time.

      Lenin and Stalin operated state socialism/capitalist societies in Russia, they did terrible things and likewise many societies that operate capitalism have done terrible things in the past 45 years alone. Corporate imperialism, slavery, military dictatorships, killing of political dissidents, mass torture, plundering of resources and foreign economies, funding mass killings such as in East Timor. When Bush did something it was “blame Bush” not “blame capitalism” for the majority of the populus. Why is it that Stalin’s destruction must then mean “blame communism”? “Blame stalinism” yes…

    • Chase Stevens says:

      11:49am | 26/10/09

      Also how many people die a day due to easily preventable medical conditions that due to the great and all mighty capitalist system they cannot afford to treat? The assumption that capitalism does not and has not killed as many people as communism is gradually (Perhaps already has been) becoming less and less of a certainty.

    • darien says:

      11:48am | 26/10/09

      Nice to see that some arguments are based on incomplete understandings such as “Communism prescribes the destruction of whole classes of people.“from andrew at 11.42 and the dates when the USSR invaded Polandl actually 17-9-39, sixteen days after Nazi Germany had. Yes, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was signed so that the Germans knew that there would be no Russian opposition but Germany had planned a Polish invasion with or withour Russian compliance.
      Nazi Germany was intrinsically based on racial lines rather than an insane definition of class compliance - it meant entire races of people were to be destroyed root and branch with only the useful to survive as a slave caste while the Stalin experiment at forced class homogenity meant that people were forced into becoming Soviet citizens.
      Both were fundamentally wrong and the world is a better place without the extreme manifestations of racial and class theory - but the fundamentals of communism - to each according to their needs - ally themselves solidly with the tenets of humanism and help fporm the basis of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration. I’d never try to defend Stalin, the forced collectivizations, the purges and deportations of minorities but the practice of communism has always been far far removed from its theoretical background; and its theory and practice should be treated as such.

      Secondly, capitalism is just doing its job with regards to the Lenin Bar - ot takes a challenging idea and subsumes the idea into its common discourse and mitigates its challenge by making it part of the existing structure.Simple cultural theory seen historically through other ideas such as trade unions.

      Or the owners may just have liked Soviet constructivist art and thought it looks cool.

      PS - new Soviet archives place Russian casualties closer to 40 million during WWII.

    • Steve Smith says:

      11:56am | 26/10/09

      LOL@ the “Capitalism: A Love Story” banners all over thepunch.com.au now.

      mikk makes a good point. The trait of humans to abuse power and become corrupt ensures that neither communism nor capitalism is perfect. However the flaws in Communism are more apparent because the people in power have almost absolute control over the people.

    • COF says:

      12:02pm | 26/10/09

      “This is strange because in overall scope, communism presents as a greater man-made humanitarian catastrophe than nazism, or almost certainly any other ism. “

      I don’t think borrowing an aesthetic means you justify the body count. And its sympathisers are not necessarily enamoured with the system, just the egalitarian ideal - an ideal that is not evil in its essence.

      Too bad you don’t have a body count on Obscurantism, David.

    • the faux journalist says:

      12:10pm | 26/10/09

      to margaret mead who wrote: “Umm, see that thing you’re typing on…not invented by a Communist.”

      actually you could probably argue that it was Margie… US govt money made computers and the internet, not some free-market capitalist company R and D dept, and they were doing it to compete with the USSR, so that would be US socialism that invented it? or whatever the US is, def not capitalist .. so how bout that?

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      12:12pm | 26/10/09

      ” For believers it’s always the people at fault, never the plan “

      True, How true,  David Southwell

      Just have a look at Australia’s central planners, always at it, in every level of government and their departments to realise this plain truth.

      Plans on plans, about plans for plans on plans. A cacophony of plans going some where but mostly nowhere at a snails pace, which is the reason for these plans in the first place, to support the wages and lifestyles of these circular outcome driven paper shufflers who ring the political bells of action without any necessary followup on delivery or performance other than another plan, review, inquiry or further consultation planning.

      And who gets the blame for the governments failures to plan properly?
      No, not the principle politicians or their planners, but those unsoficated, unwashed, the surburbanites, fringe dwellers, outsiders, those wastefull families who find driving a car efficient, convenient, pleasurable, who love progressively advanced technology, who love their backyards and its power to satisfy the individual, those nasty urban sprawler’s, the unwashed others, who must be retrained by firstly indoctrination within high density living ( neo ghettoes) to suit the central planners and their prince and princesses who’s collective thought bubbles always burst at the others expense. “examples can be supplied on request”

      These same planners and their principles who are really lost on what to do, don’t adhere to their own plans they continue to produce ad infinitum , nor set the best examples themselves by buying what they and their planners continually dish up in their planning meals of convenience.

      As an individual who has worked and a viewed this continuously wastefully loopy feeding frenzy,  What a lot of rehashed hog wash, when the planning and political dogs deliberately chase their own tails, where a great waste of money, time and resources reinforce only the purpose to produce a new plan but not the product or service paid for.

    • Tommy Gunn says:

      12:22pm | 26/10/09

      @ John A Neve
      Gee no surprises there, write something critical of the abomination known as communism and you soy mochachino sippers come scurrying out to defend it.
      Interesting that your lamenting about “the confines of political correctness”, you do realise that political correctness is part of the communist manifesto dont you? PC was first practised under communist regimes, it is a way of ensuring the state has control over the peoples minds, it it state sanctioned thought and anything that isn’t sanctioned by the state is unacceptable. The communists had agents living amongst and spying on the people at all times, making sure they were toeing the line.
      How you can complain about the loss of freedoms etc on the one hand but then on the other hand not bring yourself to condemn the very system that is the cause of this is just baffling to any sane mind.
      Communism is the evil empire, and to quote Ronald Reagan “freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.”

    • sdae says:

      12:29pm | 26/10/09

      The internet was and still largely is inherently anarchist anyway.

    • Steve says:

      12:34pm | 26/10/09

      Lenin Bar - seems to be the latest in a growing trend.  Here in Canberra we have both the “Kremlin Bar” and “Das Kapital” as popular drinking holes, prompting my 60 year old father to recently express his astonishment at how far public attitudes have shifted in his lifetime.

      Interesting developments when you consider the amount of Australian lives lost in military conflict to prevent the global spread of communism in the second half of the 20th century.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:37pm | 26/10/09

      Andrew,
      You make my very point, it isn’t the ideology that’s at fault it’s the implementor. Those operating under the guise od cfapitalism have done much the same. Example, Paul Robeson jhad his passport confiscated and was blackballed in America
      Sorry Andrew, but you confuse the ideology with the individual, a bad mistake. Political correctness, the world bank, congloborates are all, via the backdoor, doing the very things you claim communism does. How many third world people have died as a result of the scramble for oil?
      Why are we really in Afghanistan? Why did we really invade Iraq?
      To quote Julious Sumner-Miller “why is this so”?

    • James says:

      12:54pm | 26/10/09

      The worst advertisments for Communism and Christianity are the people who follow them

    • papachango says:

      01:00pm | 26/10/09

      I agee 100%. Communism, while it has catchy slogans that promise equality and classless society, is an inherently evil ideology. Full stop.

      I am appalled by the use of Mao, Che even Lenin as pop culture icons, and I am deeply appalled by the number of people here defending or making excuses for this evil ideology. If someone tried to defend nazism in a simlar vein they would rightly be banned.

      Communism is as much if not more evil than national socialism - it is directly responsible for 120 million deaths in the last century alone.  The only difference is nazism didn’t disguise their evil aims with catchy slogans.

      I totally reject the notion that communism ‘has noble aims but is misguided’. Modern day communists like John Passant ,Jimmy Moore and mikk and even left-leaning sympathisers like John A Neve and Partick above make excuses and apologia for parts of it, often referring to Karl Marx’s utopian end state (the classless, stateless society) as a justification for all manner of totalitarianism - it’s a consequationalist, ‘end justifies the means’ argument, which is totally wrong and dangerous. Jimmy Moore says that communism doesn’t preach class war - count how many times the phrase ‘class struggle’ appears in the Communist Manifesto Jimmy - it’s in the very first sentence.

      We must defeat this dangerous idea to finally move communism to where it belongs - the dustbin of history. It should be viewed with the same contempt as nazism. We do this by demonstrating on first principles that, despite (or even because of) the catchy slogans, the ideology itself is evil,  the massive body count is just further proof. The ideology itself is evil because it completely removes individual liberty, just like nazism and facism does.

    • papachango says:

      01:15pm | 26/10/09

      Speaking of the Lenin bar, the closest thing I’ve seen on the other end of the political spectrum is the Nixon bar here in Melbourne. Even has a picture of Richard N in its logo.
      Not that Nixon was particularly ‘capitalist’, but the real icons of capitalism - Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand etc - don’t exactly make for sexy iconography.

    • Steve Smith says:

      01:39pm | 26/10/09

      Regarding Che, his the perfect example of, ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’..

      “Che Guevara’s feats in our continent were of such magnitude that no prison or censorhip could hide them from us. Che’s life is an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.We always honor his memory”

      -Nelson Mandela-

    • Bruce Nelson says:

      02:07pm | 26/10/09

      58 comments and no ones bothered to ask how extensive the bar’s drink list is?

    • papachango says:

      02:11pm | 26/10/09

      @Steve Smith - This would be the same Che who brutally executed Cuban dissenters and anyone associated with the old regime?

      The same Che often worn by protesters supporting David Hicks’ right to a fair trial, but who boasted that “we execute from revolutionary conviction!” and that “judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail.” ?

      Some argue that he was ‘liberating’ Cuba from the (admittedly bad) Batista dictatorship, but he’s hardly a ‘freedom fighter’ as he and Castro oversaw a government that outlawed all private property and individual freedom, and does so to this day. To call him an inspiration to freedom is disingenious and plain wrong.

      Che was also bloodthirsty - he wasn’t content with having ‘won’ in cuba, he had to go and join other bloody revolutions in Bolivia

    • phil says:

      02:19pm | 26/10/09

      The elephant in the room here is religion, why no takers?

    • Liberty Australia says:

      02:29pm | 26/10/09

      “Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself — should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something ...that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.” - Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature http://tinyurl.com/yl3evak

      Posted at Liberty Australia’s facebook
      http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Australia/44355686680

    • COF says:

      02:31pm | 26/10/09

      Papochango:
      ‘We must defeat this dangerous idea to finally move communism to where it belongs - the dustbin of history. It should be viewed with the same contempt as nazism. We do this by demonstrating on first principles that, despite (or even because of) the catchy slogans, the ideology itself is evil,  the massive body count is just further proof. The ideology itself is evil because it completely removes individual liberty, just like nazism and facism does. ‘
      Straw man, appeal to fear, anti intellectualism….you use all the logical fallacies in a paragraph here, along with a repetitive slogan to make sure the message sinks in (“the ideology itself is evil”). Your post has a lot in common with the people you are protesting against.
      I am no communist sympathiser, but I am certainly against the curtailment of thought just because it has once proved dangerous when people have (poorly) adapted it to society.
      It is best when approaching political discourse to not look on your opponent as “evil” because in most cases they are not. You are essentially saying that for thinking in such a way, they have no rights. Welcome to the totalitarian club.

      PS It is interesting to note that the swastika has been used in hindu culture for thousands of years as a positive religious symbol, but because of its use politically it has become a symbol of hatred and murder in the eyes of many. Because of this connotation is the symbol itself evil? I don’t think a negative perception of something makes it inherently evil, especially when we are talking about symbols and aesthetics.

    • Steve Smith says:

      02:37pm | 26/10/09

      @papachango:
      1. yes that is the same Che that you accuse. But I wasn’t there to add the adjective brutally to the word executed.. then again is there any other form of execution? Can you nicely execute someone?

      2. yes, but don’t blame Che for bogans not understanding the irony of wearing the face of communism in Latin American on a T-shirt Made in China.

      3. The Batista part is right, but maybe you should tell Nelson Mandela not to call him “an inspiration to freedom”.

    • stephen says:

      02:37pm | 26/10/09

      Karl Marx was a psychologist, and a quite good one. He knew, however, as much about British Classical Economics as I do. His theories purpote to show individual behaviour against a shifting and essentially malign labour/reward system. He was wrong, and millions of people died fighting for something they knew nothing of.

    • Drunken Soviet Soldier of Glorious Mother Russia says:

      03:05pm | 26/10/09

      Anyone seen my bottle of smirnoff?

    • COF says:

      03:09pm | 26/10/09

      To Liberty Australia,

      fair point, but you’re off topic. A pub does not constitute a revolutionary movement.

      “The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one.”

      Is it? Nietschze’s thought has been wrongly attributed to the formulation of the Nazi state, just as Marx’s has been poorly adapted to communist states. I think to subsequently label their thoughts as a “poor ideal” is not only fallacious, but placing unnecessary limitations on the boundaries of thought. If someone set up a police state based on the works of Adam Smith, does that mean Smith’s philosophy has no merit? Preposterous.

      What makes it worse is that you apply this train of thought to the ethical ideal of “equality” which is an element of every political system, even the capitalist ones. Do you think it is fair to lionise “liberty” because of the atrocities taken out in its name?

      This is a wrong headed argument friends.

    • Nick Taylor says:

      03:17pm | 26/10/09

      Dude, its just a bar. I know somepeople are saying I missed the point of your article but I’d still like to point this out.

      And che shirts. You seen the people that wear them? Idiots who want to wear a revolutionist but dont want to act like one. Its like idiots who wear shirts of The Ramones and have no idea what that means. To quote somebody wearing a Che shirt “Wasnt he a soccer player?”

    • AT says:

      03:23pm | 26/10/09

      This article seems to be more a popular-culture and fashion piece than anything else. If communism had triumphed over capitalism, our naively rebellious youth would be wearing Ayn Rand instead of Che t-shirts. Circular Quay would boast a “Wall Street” bar replete with nostalgic/ironic hip ticker-tape machines. Instead of their Teutonic suit-and-tie uniforms, corporate and political elites would wear Zegna designed Mao suits.

      Ranking ideologies’ “evilness” by body counts is a little obscene and not very enlightening. When you write “the real… true believers ... [of communism] would rather see the people thrown away than the plan” you could just as easily be referring to contemporary capitalist Australia where asylum seekers are almost literally “thrown away”.

      Pick over the bones and tally the Nazi/Commie slaughters if you must, but to declare communism ‘as bad’ as Nazism without considering the context of their emergence and their underlying principles is really quite risible.

    • Daphon says:

      03:40pm | 26/10/09

      “Here in Canberra we have both the “Kremlin Bar” and “Das Kapital” as popular drinking holes,...”

      A bar called “Das Kapital” in the Capital?  Brilliant!

    • Dave Moore says:

      04:53pm | 26/10/09

      ‘There is, of course, also the small matter of World War II, which for Australians Hitler started by invading Poland.’

      Honestly, I always thought he was Austrian.

    • Sergio Lissone says:

      04:59pm | 26/10/09

      Excellent article, thank you so much for writing this. We need more writers who can critically analyse issues without applying double standards. You have highlighted a blind spot in people’s thinking that can no longer be tolerated: Any criticism that applies to Nazism, applies even more strongly to Communism. Any attempts to excuse or dilute the evils of communism are implicitly letting Nazism off the hook too. I suspect the intellectuals know it too, which is why these honest comparisons come up so rarely.

      I would ask that people don’t change the subject to criticisms of unrelated systems like Capitalism. The word doesn’t appear once in the article. It’s an obvious yet ineffective attempt at distracting readers from the main point of the article.

    • Chris says:

      05:18pm | 26/10/09

      Well the revolutions in Russia, China and so on were actually bourgeois revolutions. The bourgeoisie developed from the illegitimate offspring of the aristocracy.  The illegitimate offspring of the bourgeoisie is the proletariat.
      The revolutionary proletariat were not even a twinkling in someones eye at the time of those revolutions. 

      If you read and understand everything the Russian and Chinese revolutionaries (e.g Lenin and Mao) said and wrote they were not building communism at all they were building bourgeois society’s based on socialist ideology through counter-imperialist bourgeois revolution.

      If you want to know who the bourgeois are read this quote from the communist manifesto:

      “Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives. “

      There you see it. The bourgeois are not the capitalists that own all the banks and factories. Sure the banks operate in the class interests of the bourgeois but individual bourgeois do not own banks.

      The bourgeois are more likely those that get other mens wives pregnant or married women who seek them.

      The revolutionary proletariat is the genetic offspring of the bourgeois. Now you see it now you understand.

    • Anthony says:

      05:22pm | 26/10/09

      To call something black or white when there is 99.9 % grey inbetween is silly. Every single religious or political theory or way of thought has been used in some context to destroy, murder, deceive and exploit. To Ban or criticise resemblance of something based on a regime or countries implementation of that theory is very narrow minded.

    • Frank Merlot says:

      07:27pm | 26/10/09

      The biggest threat we all face is not a political ideology as such but rather the silencing of objection and criticism and the stripping away of ones right to knowledge.  Having just come back from Vietnam and Cambodia I have a real feeling that so much of Pol Pot’s horrendous legacy could have been averted if only the world had known.  In very simple terms Capitalism funded and promoted Maoism to fight Communism.  All three ideologies were able to perpetrate great human suffering and injustices based on suppression and the promotion of ignorance around the world.

    • papachango says:

      10:25pm | 26/10/09

      COF - Nothing ‘anti-intellectual’ about my arguments - I want to show that the ideals of communism are evil from first principles, and that takes a rigorous intellectual argument about the value of individual liberty.

      The exact same argument could be used to show that facism is an evil ideology - would you dispute that, or would you say it would be ‘anti-intellectual’ not to consider the facist point of view, because to disregard the facist’s argument is ‘totalitarian’?

      Note I don’t think people should be prevented for expressing communist ideas, or nazi ideas for that matter - but I would like to see checks and balances against such threats to freedom being implemented ever again.

      You mention Adam Smith - I don’t recall him calling for a police state anywhere in The Wealth of Nations, the exact opposite in fact - whereas Marx actively endorsed a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Chalk and cheese.

      As to the swastika being a Sanskrit symbol of peace, so what’s your point? I don’t think all red stars are evil just because the commies used them extensively.

      @Steve Smith - fair enough ‘brutal execution’ is probably a tautology. But it’s hardly ‘bogans’ who wear Che T-Shirts, its ‘progressive’ inner-city lefties who should know better if they’re so ‘intellectual’. Lastly I think Mandela is dead wrong about Che.

    • Alec says:

      06:29am | 27/10/09

      The vodka-addled trendoids slurping wodka head-bangers in the Kremlin bar and its plastic clones are no better or worse than any other lazy, well-heeled under-30, and about as politically alert. Vodka brain-stunners are the fad drink of the day, is all.

      For Heaven’s sake, what next. A piece of Punch uber-right handwringing based on all the cloned “Irish Pobs”, equally plastic, about The Troubles and the evils of how the IRA bloody A was secretly Left WIng once upon a bomb?

      Get a grip for chrissakes. We have big issues to sort, and dopey bar fads aren’t it.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:10am | 27/10/09

      Sergio Lissone,
      While it is true the word ‘capitalism” doe not appear in Davids article, the article is about comparisions. He als cites Che and Che’s revolution was against capitalism. Further to debate an issue there must surely be a point of comparision? Most of the contributors to this thread are living in a capitalist society, therefore we are seeing the issues via a capitalist perspective. Some one living in a communist country would, I suspect ,view the article in a totally different light.

    • COF says:

      08:33am | 27/10/09

      Here you go, Papochango:
      “Nothing ‘anti-intellectual’ about my arguments - I want to show that the ideals of communism are evil from first principles, and that takes a rigorous intellectual argument about the value of individual liberty.”

      Well done - please provide said rigorous intellectual argument and stop giving a lesson in nothing more than obfuscation. Start with the questions “What is evil?“and “How does calling something evil obscure its actual nature?”

      “The exact same argument could be used to show that facism is an evil ideology - would you dispute that, or would you say it would be ‘anti-intellectual’ not to consider the facist point of view, because to disregard the facist’s argument is ‘totalitarian’?”

      Poor choice of a parallel - you use Fascism as an example of a thought that requires suppression. Obviously in your disregard of fascism as an ideology, you forgot to find out what it actually means.

      “Note I don’t think people should be prevented for expressing communist ideas, or nazi ideas for that matter - but I would like to see checks and balances against such threats to freedom being implemented ever again.”

      Thats right - first cab of the rank is we should not suppress thought. You’re getting it.

      “You mention Adam Smith - I don’t recall him calling for a police state anywhere in The Wealth of Nations, the exact opposite in fact - whereas Marx actively endorsed a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Chalk and cheese.”

      Your straw man is again logically correct, but there are plenty of police states (pinochet and mussolini for example) that have advocated the free markets envisioned by Smith, which was actually my point. This is the argument that I have been trying to make which you have obscured - VIOLENCE AND EVIL IS NOT PERPETRATED BY IDEOLOGIES. It is perpetrated by violent and evil people, using ideology as their excuse. If a violent man wants to kill another in the name of Adam Smith, he will find some way of doing so. The same goes for every politcal ideology, including communism.

      “As to the swastika being a Sanskrit symbol of peace, so what’s your point? I don’t think all red stars are evil just because the commies used them extensively.”

      My point is that they’re only talking about a bar here. I don’t think you are going to get a whole lot of half cut twenty somethings starting a totalitarian political movement any time soon, just because they like the decor.

    • Z says:

      03:05pm | 27/10/09

      Do people realise that the term “Communist Dictator” is an oxymoron?

    • Sam says:

      03:16pm | 27/10/09

      Actually communism is cool, because it’s “misguided” as most cool things usually are. You know what else is cool? indulging in idealism from time to time. What isn’t cool as far as I’m concerned, is the insinuation that we’ve got a brighter future than those countries that tried it. The nationalism (propoganda induced and misguided though it may be) that communism fosters is admirable to me, and it doesn’t seem to me that Russia or China have necessarily incurred any long term economic disadvantage as a result of its experimentation with communism. I think its very cool that come governments are prepared to change course or even pursue multiple courses in parallel (eg. China) rather than buy OUR propoganda that communism is just no good. A few decades ago, it was “evil” and a commi was akin to today’s terrorist!!! I mean seriously, it’s ok to think outside the square and it’s ok to change your mind later too. I’m personally sick of us thinking we can’t learn from others around the world as if we’re some kind of God-send. I am an economic slave, so I’m not particularly proud of our system by any stretch of the imagination.

    • davido says:

      12:46am | 28/10/09

      A DOLLAR a day is still a dollar a day. Capitalism or communism.

    • Cameron says:

      02:10am | 28/10/09

      This is one of the more interesting discussions we’ve seen on here for a while.
      Interesting in that many of the comments here are mixing the ideologies of Communism with culture, then running them through the fabric of merciless and fatally flawed individuals who are seemingly at odds with the very ideology or culture they purport to lead. The idea that you can tie a particular political persuasion ( in this instance Communism ) and make a direct line to genocide is in my view flawed. I’m not convinced that in any Communism documentation, the right of death sentence and genocide decision making is bestowed or encouraged on the keeper of that particular political persuasion. Surely it’s the individual and his/her fatal flaw in built that drives these kind of actions. Having conducted business in Russia and Eastern Europe, I can tell you they are a proud people, not particularly proud of their human rights record over the last 150 years, but proud they came out of it the other side with lessons learnt. Some journos at this point may direct our attention to the plight of their slayed colleagues, in Russia particularly, but again, is this the work of some political system or is it the result of someone’s thirst for power driven by ego. I think the latter. Capitalism is not cool. What we’re doing to our planet is very uncool. The many people not fed in the world is very uncool.  I’m not sure communism is cool either, but what I am convinced of is that no matter whether you live under capitalism or communism, the decisions made about the so called welfare of a nation and its people are generally made by ‘leaders’ with the thought of votes, elections, money and power. Capitalism and communism share this without exception, therefore, it’d be fair to say that it’s not either persuasion that’s cool or uncool, it’s the people who administer these ideologies through their own motivations that stain the two.

    • Machina says:

      08:23am | 28/10/09

      Remember in Wayne’s World 2 when they held a “Communist Party” to raise money for Waynestock?
      That was sweet.

    • Rob says:

      09:55am | 28/10/09

      Why is it that there are so many ‘leftists’ who yearn for a commumist styled world, when they themselves have gained so much from living and prospering in a Capitalist society.
      Class guilt is self imposed and to loath yourself and your countrymen only serves to bring society down, rather than build to a greater state of humanity.

    • watch Scream 4 online says:

      07:08am | 24/03/11

      Hey,
       
        This is a question for the webmaster/admin here at http://www.thepunch.com.au.

      May I use some of the information from this post above if I give a link back to this website?

      Thanks,
      James

    • CoresmoopyNem says:

      01:46pm | 29/07/11

      A shared trap hosting military talents or essential hosting service or derive host refers to a cobweb hosting service where many websites reside on anyone net server connected to the Internet. Each situate “sits” on its own break-up, or section/place on the server, to keep it detach from other sites. This is on average the most close-fisted choice for hosting, as uncountable people allocation the overall expenditure of server maintenance.
      hosting

    • pletcheracp says:

      08:26am | 12/10/11

      Vente Doudoune Moncler 2011! moncler, Moncler Acheter vestes en duvet, des femmes Moncler Vestes, moncler homme,La société d’investissement Eurazeo prend 45 % du célèbre fabricant de doudounes end auspices of c end up down in buckets 418 millions d’euros.

    • pletcherohi says:

      06:35am | 14/10/11

      Nike Air Jordan est une ligne de chaussures de basket-ball de marque Nike, frappees du nom de Michael Jordan.Vente de air jordan Breeze Jordan de qualite bony on the clay b costly, différents styles ainsi que les prix bon marche. Pageant Jordan Basket,Air Jordan(s), also known simply as basket jordan, are a brand of shoes and athletic apparel produced by Nike air jordan pas cher originally designed for and endorsed by NBA.

    • carpinteyrovih says:

      06:45am | 14/10/11

      Nike Coherence Jordan est une ligne de chaussures de basket-ball de marque Nike, frappees du nom de Michael Jordan.Vente de air jordan Connected to Jordan de qualite bait, différents styles ainsi que les prix bon marche. Prevailing Jordan Basket,Air Jordan(s), also known simply as chaussure air jordan, are a brand of shoes and athletic apparel produced by Nike air jordan pas cher originally designed for and endorsed by NBA.

    • cherry says:

      12:46pm | 27/10/11

      UGG Classic Stripe Cable Knit 58 , 4) Develop.As oben diskutiert, einige Backen Bildungseinrichtungen auf überlegene dining.Other Menschen Aufmerksamkeit zu Haus Hausmannskost food.Moreover wird italienische Küche wirklich regional, sondern der wie der toskanischen Küche, für den Fall in Punkt garantiert, um Ihre Küche Besuch in der Toskana, Umbrien und / oder Lazio, von denen alle geben wirklich ähnlich cuisines.5) Menge der Courses.Presently sucht im Hinblick auf die Intensiv-Workshops auf einer täglichen betrachten werden Grundlage, oder irgendeine Art von Klasse dann und wann? Die meisten einer Woche Urlaub wird zwei oder drei Klassen, aber viele geben nur 1, obwohl einige Kochen haben von Tag zu Nacht, jeden day.6) Hotel.This ist tatsächlich eine große difficulty.Are einer Person verbleibenden innerhalb einer Villa das wird passieren, andere Kollegen? Will möchten Sie vielleicht Immobilien-Aktie? Gibt es Klimaanlage? Werden Sie ein typisches Hotel zu Hause? Untersuchen Sie, dass intensiv, weil jeder Grillen Reise durch Italien hat unterschiedliche Arten für die meisten der integrierten Zimmer.

    • carpinteyrogpc says:

      12:58pm | 29/02/12

      christian louboutin‘s trademark vulpine red soles are an louboutin unalterable prime of the exploit oneself up into a lather excellence. Since the silence of his consummate eponymous plate-mark in 1991.jusqu’a 60% moins cher,christian louboutin pas cher Les fabricants vendent directement.

    • pletcherioc says:

      03:34am | 25/04/12

      Les escarpins louboutin apportent les femmes addendum d’elegance et together with de charme.Ce sont les louboutin pas cher modeles les with the putting together of populaires christian louboutin de ce trimestre.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 I think I have found the winner: 'Bladder and Bowel Website'

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

Malcolm Farr

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter